On Wed, Dec 12, 2018 at 7:24 AM David Steele <david@pgmasters.net> wrote:
> Attached is the patch.
>
> I was a bit surprised by how much code went away. There was a lot of
> code dedicated to making sure that backup_label got renamed on shutdown,
> that there was not an exclusive backup running, etc.
>
> There were no tests for exclusive backup so the test changes were minimal.
>
> I did have to replace one "hot backup" in
> 010_logical_decoding_timelines.pl. I'm not sure why the backup was
> being done this way, or why the standby needs a copy of pg_replslot
> (which is not copied by pg_basebackup). It might be worth looking at
> but it seemed out of scope for this patch.
I wish to point out that there currently seem to be more votes against
this proposal than for it, and that nobody should commit a patch
unless there is a consensus that it should be committed, whether or
not the committer personally agrees with the arguments against it.
As for my vote, I do not buy the idea that because we're changing some
stuff about recovery.conf we should go ahead and do this too. Yes,
they are related, but just because you adjust your backup/restore
script/tool to cope with one change doesn't mean that you don't have
to adjust it some more to cope with the other change.
I also think that the idea that supporting the exclusive backup
interface is hurting anything is greatly exaggerated. Whether we keep
it or not, we're not forcing anyone to use it.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company